This would involve drafting text for RDA 16.4.1 and 16.4.2, which are currently marked as [To be added in a later release]. But note that there are already LC-PCC PSs for each of these placeholder instructions. --[[User:Robert J. Rendall|Robert J. Rendall]] ([[User talk:Robert J. Rendall|talk]]) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

+

+

'''Creating separate instructions for an element called Name of Larger Place in chapter 16'''

+

+

I think this would involve adding a new instruction between 16.2 and 16.3 called Name of Larger Place. Then the text we write for 16.4 would tell us how to add this Larger Place to the preferred and variant names when constructing authorized and variant access points (assuming we want to end up with the same results we have now). This would mirror the way that some of the elements described in 11.3-11 are then used in 11.13 to construct access points for corporate bodies. --[[User:Robert J. Rendall|Robert J. Rendall]] ([[User talk:Robert J. Rendall|talk]]) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

This looks like it would be a lot more complicated. To do this I think we would have to draft at least parts of Chapters 33 (General Guidelines on Recording Relationships between Concepts, Objects, Events, and Places) and 37 (Related Places), which are currently empty, though we could model our text on what we see in Chapters 29 and 32. And then, if we want to end up with the kind of access points we have now, we would have to add instructions in 16.4 about adding the name of one particular related place (a larger one) when constructing access points. Unlike the previous approach, this seems quite different from any pattern we see in RDA now. --[[User:Robert J. Rendall|Robert J. Rendall]] ([[User talk:Robert J. Rendall|talk]]) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

+

+

'''Other?'''

+

+

Should we pick one approach and try to draft something? Or more than one? Do we want to limit ourselves to an approach that will produce access points that look exactly like what we have now, or do we want to think more "outside the box" than that? --[[User:Robert J. Rendall|Robert J. Rendall]] ([[User talk:Robert J. Rendall|talk]]) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

Revision as of 10:46, 4 April 2013

Charge

The Task Force on the Recording of Place Names is charged with continuing CC:DA’s work in clarifying and suggesting revisions to RDA’s instructions on recording the names of places, with the ultimate goal of making these instructions conform to RDA’s goals of 1) creating an international standard and 2) presenting bibliographic information as machine-actionable data. With that in mind, the Task Force will explore, among other options:

Removing the requirement to record larger places from the instructions for recording preferred and variant forms of names;

This would involve drafting text for RDA 16.4.1 and 16.4.2, which are currently marked as [To be added in a later release]. But note that there are already LC-PCC PSs for each of these placeholder instructions. --Robert J. Rendall (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

Creating separate instructions for an element called Name of Larger Place in chapter 16

I think this would involve adding a new instruction between 16.2 and 16.3 called Name of Larger Place. Then the text we write for 16.4 would tell us how to add this Larger Place to the preferred and variant names when constructing authorized and variant access points (assuming we want to end up with the same results we have now). This would mirror the way that some of the elements described in 11.3-11 are then used in 11.13 to construct access points for corporate bodies. --Robert J. Rendall (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

Alternately, creating a relationship element of Larger/Smaller Place

This looks like it would be a lot more complicated. To do this I think we would have to draft at least parts of Chapters 33 (General Guidelines on Recording Relationships between Concepts, Objects, Events, and Places) and 37 (Related Places), which are currently empty, though we could model our text on what we see in Chapters 29 and 32. And then, if we want to end up with the kind of access points we have now, we would have to add instructions in 16.4 about adding the name of one particular related place (a larger one) when constructing access points. Unlike the previous approach, this seems quite different from any pattern we see in RDA now. --Robert J. Rendall (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (PDT)

Other?

Should we pick one approach and try to draft something? Or more than one? Do we want to limit ourselves to an approach that will produce access points that look exactly like what we have now, or do we want to think more "outside the box" than that? --Robert J. Rendall (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (PDT)